JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Burke and Spence concurred in the judgment
and opinion.

OPINION

BIRKETT JUSTICE

¶
1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Du Page
County, defendant, Todd J. Mandoline, was convicted of
first-degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2012)) and
aggravated arson (720 ILCS 5/20-1.1(a)(2) (West 2012)), and
he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 27
years for murder and 12 years for aggravated arson. Defendant
appeals, arguing that: (1) probable cause did not exist for
his arrest; (2) defendant did not voluntarily reinitiate
questioning with the police after the initial interrogation
had ceased due to his invocation of his right to counsel; (3)
his statements to the police were not voluntary, knowing, and
intelligent; (4) his statements were obtained in violation of
section 103-2.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963
(Code) (725 ILCS 5/103-2.1 (West 2012)), which requires the
electronic recording of custodial interrogations in murder
investigations; and (5) the trial court erroneously refused a
jury instruction bearing on the proximate-cause theory of
felony murder. We affirm.

¶
2 I. BACKGROUND

¶
3 We summarize the pertinent facts adduced during the
hearings and the trial in this matter. Early in the morning
on July 22, 2012, Paula Morgan died in a fire at her home in
Lombard, Illinois; Jason Cassiday was burned over 40% of his
body and experienced life-threatening pulmonary injuries due
to inhaling smoke and combustion products, but he survived
the fire. The fire began in Morgan's car: a piece of
paper had been inserted into the gasoline fill tube of the
car and ignited. The car was parked in the driveway of the
home, almost inside of the garage. The garage door was open
and the door to the mudroom, off of the garage, was also
open. A whole-house fan, which was apparently operating at
the time of the fire, pulled smoke and flames into the garage
and the house. The car and the garage were largely consumed
by the fire; the upstairs rooms of the house were heavily
damaged.

¶
4 On Saturday, July 21, 2012, Morgan's parents left on an
out-of-town trip. That night, Morgan had a birthday party.
Defendant, who had been in an intimate but up-and-down
relationship with Morgan, attended. As the party progressed,
defendant became agitated because he apparently believed that
he and Morgan would spend the night alone together, and he
was upset when she had a large birthday party. At some point
during the party, defendant and Morgan began to argue.
Defendant demanded the return of a necklace he had given
Morgan; there was some shoving, and partygoers separated
defendant and Morgan. Defendant spoke with Ricardo Sanchez
for an hour or more. Eventually, Morgan surrendered the
necklace to defendant, and Matt Schopa drove defendant away
from the party. At some point, either during defendant's
initial confrontation with Morgan or as he was leaving the
party, he stated, "I hope you all die."

¶
5 At about 2 a.m. on July 22, 2012, Salman Jaffer, who lived
across the street from the Morgan home, left his home to work
out. Jaffer explained that he was observing the Muslim
holiday of Ramadan, which required fasting during the
daytime, so he had flipped his schedule and ate and was
active at night. He noticed a car that he did not recognize
from his neighborhood parked across from his house. He
returned from his workout at about 3 a.m. and noticed that
the car was no longer there. However, when interviewed by the
police, he stated that the car was still present when he
returned from his workout. Sometime between 3:30 and 4 a.m.,
Jaffer heard the sound of breaking glass. Fearing that he was
being harassed, he doused the lights and then noticed an
orange glow. He observed that Morgan's car was on fire
and called 911. Jaffer attempted to help, but he was advised
by the emergency operator to back away when the tires on
Morgan's car began to explode.

¶
6 At about 3 a.m., Asgar Mohammed, another neighbor observing
the holiday of Ramadan, left his house to go to the grocery
store. He encountered a brown-haired white male with a
scruffy beard and exchanged a greeting with him. The man was
wearing a light-colored shirt and baggy light-khaki short
pants. Defendant was observed at the party wearing clothes
matching that description. Mohammed also noticed a suspicious
car and noted that the person in the car was not the same
person with whom he had exchanged a greeting.

¶
7 Police and fire personnel responded to the fire. Police
began the process of investigating the circumstances of the
fire.

¶
8 At about 5:30 a.m. on July 22, 2012, Detective Sergeant
John Malatia of the Lombard police department reported to the
Morgans' house. At that early time, no one had determined
the cause of the fire. Malatia noted the damage to the house
and to Morgan's car and returned to his office. The
police began bringing the partygoers into the police
department for interviews.

¶
9 Detectives Gouty and Grage of the Lombard police department
interviewed Sanchez. Sanchez had observed the altercation
between defendant and Morgan and explained that he had
interposed himself and restrained defendant. Sanchez
confirmed that defendant had stated, "I wish you all
die" or "I hope you all die." Sanchez also
related that, later, he had seen someone in the shadows.
Although Sanchez was not able to provide a description of the
individual in the shadows, he believed that it was defendant
returning to the party.

¶
10 Another partygoer, Matt Allen, was interviewed by
Lieutenant Abenante of the Lombard police department. Allen
related that there was no physical altercation between
defendant and Morgan. Allen also had seen someone in the
shadows before the discovery of the fire; Allen did not say
that he had seen defendant.

¶
11 At around 6:20 or 6:30 a.m., Malatia spoke to Jaffer.
Malatia learned that Jaffer had not seen anyone who seemed
responsible for the fire when Jaffer discovered it. Jaffer
informed Malatia that he had seen a Hyundai Tiburon parked
near Morgan's house before the fire but that the car had
departed by the time he discovered the fire.

¶
12 At 6:32 a.m., Malatia and Detective Terrence Evoy of the
Lombard police department interviewed Schopa. Schopa told the
detectives that he had attended Morgan's birthday party
the previous evening. Schopa related that defendant and
Morgan argued about a necklace defendant had given to Morgan.
Schopa also noted that defendant stated that he hoped Morgan
died or that he wanted everyone to die, but Morgan might not
have been present for the statement. Schopa told the
detectives that he interceded with Morgan about the necklace,
and she gave him the necklace to return to defendant. Schopa
also informed the detectives that, at around 1:30 a.m., he
had driven defendant away from the party, dropping defendant
off on his street. Schopa drove the detectives along the
route he used to drive defendant away. The detectives
determined that Schopa had dropped defendant off about three
houses short of defendant's residence.

¶
13 The police investigating the fire held a brief meeting to
exchange what they had learned. After this meeting, Malatia
sent Detectives Michael Harris and Balsitis of the Lombard
police department to defendant's home. Malatia,
accompanied by Evoy, followed the other two detectives to
defendant's home, arriving as Harris and Balsitis were
speaking to defendant on his front porch.

¶
14 At around 7:15 a.m., Harris and Balsitis arrived at
defendant's home and knocked on the front door. They were
greeted by defendant's mother and informed her that they
wished to speak with defendant. Defendant's mother woke
defendant, and he joined Harris and Balsitis on the porch. At
this point, the detectives did not inform defendant that
Morgan had died, but they stated that they were investigating
a fire that had occurred at Morgan's house earlier that
morning. Defendant admitted that he had attended Morgan's
party the night before, but he asserted that he had left the
party early because he did not get along with some of the
other partygoers.

¶
15 As Harris and Balsitis were talking with defendant,
Malatia and Evoy arrived. The record is unclear as to who
made the request, but one of the detectives asked defendant
to come to the police department, and defendant agreed.
Defendant asked that he be allowed to go to the bathroom and
to get dressed.

¶
16 Defendant went back into his house, and Harris and
Balsitis accompanied him. Harris watched defendant retrieve
his footwear and Balsitis stayed near defendant's
bathroom as he relieved himself. Defendant put on the same
clothes he had worn to the party. The detectives noted that
these clothes were very wet and that defendant appeared to
have sweated heavily in the clothes, perhaps from running.
Harris was asked whether he watched defendant use the
bathroom, and Harris denied that he had done that. Harris was
asked whether Balsitis asked defendant to keep the bathroom
door open, and Harris was unsure whether that occurred or
even whether the bathroom door was open. Harris surmised
that, if the bathroom door were left open, Balsitis might
have asked defendant to leave it open, but Harris was unsure.
After defendant grabbed his footwear, wallet, and keys,
defendant exited his home and got into the unmarked police
car in which Malatia and Evoy arrived. The record does not
indicate that defendant was patted down before entering the
car.

¶
17 At about 7:23 a.m., they arrived at the police department,
and defendant was escorted to an interview room. Before
entering the room, Malatia searched defendant and removed
defendant's phone and wallet, placing them in a cubby.

¶
18 The interview room was approximately five feet by five
feet. At about 7:43 a.m., Malatia, with Evoy present, read
defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant immediately
asked, "If I had an attorney, would I have to wait then?
Would I have to sit here?" Malatia replied, "Yeah,
obviously." During the ensuing conversation, defendant
related that his and Morgan's relationship
"wasn't going very well." Defendant was upset
that he and Morgan had not been spending time together.
Malatia directly questioned defendant about the altercation
with Morgan at the party, but defendant initially denied it.
Malatia informed defendant that everyone at the party had
mentioned an altercation, and defendant then admitted that he
had gotten into an argument with Morgan, but he said that he
could not recall the details, such as why they were arguing,
what they were arguing about, how it started, or whether he
pushed Morgan. Defendant denied any memory of making threats
or cursing out Morgan or any of the other partygoers, but
defendant admitted that, in a text message, he called Morgan
a "whore." Defendant denied that he returned to the
party after Schopa drove him away.

¶
19 At about 8:18 a.m., defendant stated, "Now, I'll
call my lawyer. You want to say you got this on me. You want
to say whatever and try to pin me down, now, I'll talk to
my lawyer." The detectives did not discontinue the
questioning. Instead, Malatia continued, saying,
"We're trying to figure out what happened."

¶
20 At about 8:26 a.m., both Malatia and Evoy left defendant
alone in the interview room. At about 8:44 a.m., Evoy
returned to the interview room because defendant had opened
the door and set off an alarm. At that point, Evoy told
defendant that he was not allowed to leave.

¶
21 At about 9:11 a.m., defendant said, "I've said
everything I'm going to say. Can I get my cigarettes,
call my mom, and get a ride?" Malatia told defendant
that he could not leave. Defendant asked why he could not
leave, and Malatia told him that they had to get to the
bottom of the incident. Defendant asked if he could retrieve
his lawyer's phone number, and Malatia and Evoy agreed to
let him do that at a later time, but defendant was never
allowed to retrieve his lawyer's number or to call his
lawyer. At about 9:12 a.m., defendant reiterated that he had
asked for a lawyer.

¶
22 At about 9:21 a.m., defendant was taken out of the
interview room and allowed to smoke (the first smoking
break). Because no smoking was allowed in the police
department, defendant was taken outside. The spot to which
defendant was taken was a blind spot for the security cameras
located on the outside of the department. In any event, even
if defendant had been taken to a place the security cameras
covered, any verbal interaction would not have been recorded,
because the cameras were not equipped to make audio
recordings.

¶
23 Defendant was accompanied outside by Malatia and Evoy
during the first smoking break. Malatia and defendant spoke
generally about defendant and also about the case. Defendant
asked about what happened at the Morgans' house and how
the fire had started. Malatia told defendant that he did not
know. Defendant asked if he could call his mother for a ride
and mentioned the name of his lawyer. Malatia told defendant
that he knew defendant's lawyer. Defendant also asked
when he would be able to leave, but Malatia put him off,
telling him that he could not yet leave. Neither Malatia nor
Evoy prepared a report about the conversation with defendant
during the first smoking break. At around 9:32 a.m.,
defendant was returned to the interview room. The detectives
did not readminister the Miranda warnings.

¶
24 The questioning continued. At about 9:59 a.m., defendant
told the detectives that there was nothing else they needed
to know. The detectives inquired whether there was anything
else defendant wished to tell them, and defendant once again
mentioned his attorney. Evoy attempted to get defendant to
talk further, suggesting that defendant and the police would
not be able "to fix things" if defendant were not
forthcoming. Defendant responded, "I told you everything
from my point of view. I told you everything." The
questioning continued.

¶
25 At about 10:11 a.m., Evoy told defendant that incorrectly
answering "questions that we already know the answers to
does not help [you], " and he urged defendant to be
truthful. Defendant then reminded the detectives that he had
asked for a lawyer, saying, "I said I did want my
lawyer, but you never came back and asked questions about
that." Malatia told defendant that he was not allowed to
call his mother, and defendant replied, "I can call my
dad to get somebody's number to call my lawyer."

¶
26 The questioning continued. Malatia and Evoy continued to
use psychological pressure and urge defendant to give
truthful responses, with Evoy warning defendant, "the
more we dig, the more we're going to continue to dig, the
worse it's probably going to be for you." At about
10:25 a.m., defendant once again asked for a lawyer. This
time, Malatia finally recognized that defendant had invoked
his right to counsel, and the detectives terminated the
questioning and left the interview room. However, they left
defendant in the interview room while they completed other
tasks related to the investigation.

¶
27 During the interlude, Malatia and Evoy interviewed
Mohammed about his observations before the fire. After about
15 minutes, the detectives wrapped it up. Evoy escorted
Mohammed to the front of the police department. As they were
walking, Evoy retrieved copies from the printer, placing them
on top of the folder he was carrying. The copy on top was of
a picture of defendant taken earlier that morning. Evoy did
not attempt to show Mohammed the picture, but since it was on
top of the papers he was carrying, Mohammed noticed it. He
told Evoy that the picture was of the man he had seen the
night before. Evoy apparently did not create a report to
memorialize the exchange; moreover, Evoy did not bring
Mohammed back to an interview room and attempt to conduct a
photo lineup to see if Mohammed could still make an
identification. Instead, he escorted Mohammed to the doors
and let him depart.

¶
28 At around 11:30 a.m., defendant knocked on the door of the
interview room and requested permission to use the restroom
and to smoke a cigarette. Defendant was taken to the
restroom, returned momentarily to the interview room, and
then taken outside to the same spot where he had smoked
earlier (second smoking break).

¶
29 According to Malatia, during the second smoking break,
defendant asked what was occurring in the investigation.
Malatia believed that defendant asked this about five times;
each time, he or Evoy told defendant, "based on his
request for an attorney, we couldn't answer those
questions anymore." Defendant then asked when he would
be able to leave. Malatia informed defendant that he
"was going to be there for a while." Malatia
explained to the court that, in his opinion, defendant was in
custody by the time of the second smoking break.

¶
30 Defendant asked what they needed to do to talk about his
case again. Malatia testified that he explained to defendant:

"[I]n order to talk about the case again, *** he would
have to formally say he didn't want to talk to an
attorney anymore. We would have to go inside the police
department, fill out paperwork to that effect, and we would
have to read him his rights again, and we would have to start
all over from scratch there."

Defendant
agreed to the procedure that Malatia had outlined.

¶
31 At about 11:36 a.m., defendant was taken back to the
interview room. Malatia announced that defendant had earlier
asked for an attorney. Malatia asked defendant if he wanted
to speak with the detectives. Defendant replied,
"I'll talk to you." Defendant signed a
preprinted form revoking his previous invocation of his right
to an attorney. Defendant, both orally and in writing, then
waived his right to an attorney. Additionally, defendant was
once again Mirandized.

¶
32 The questioning resumed. At about 11:46 a.m., Evoy
informed defendant that he knew that defendant was involved
and he urged defendant to tell the truth so that he could
move defendant "to the next level and get [him] out of
here." Defendant asked what would happen if he were to
"remember doing it." Malatia replied that, in the
worst case, defendant would be arrested and charged and would
have to go to court. To further press defendant, Malatia
warned him that, if the police were required to continue
investigating the incident, it would be "more difficult
for [defendant] to minimize things." Evoy added that, if
defendant were to confess and take responsibility for his
actions, the judge and the State's Attorney would take it
into account. At about 11:50 a.m., defendant conceded that he
had returned to Morgan's home, saying that he "went
and spied." Defendant continued to maintain that he had
not started a fire after he returned to Morgan's
neighborhood.

¶
33 At about 12:07 p.m., Malatia informed defendant that the
experts were, at that moment, determining how the fire had
started. Malatia told defendant that he was trying to get to
the heart of the matter. Defendant continued to deny that he
started Morgan's car on fire: "I don't know
[inaudible] fire, though. Fuck, I had no gas. If I fucking-I
didn't walk up to the car with a fucking lighter or
nothing."

¶
34 After about another hour, at about 1:10 p.m., defendant
was taken from the interview room for another smoking break
(third smoking break). Detectives Chudzinski and Gouty of the
Lombard police department escorted defendant out the back
door near the garage. Chudzinski made small talk with
defendant while defendant smoked. They discussed
defendant's employment, where he went to school, and his
attempts to stop smoking. Defendant also asked Chudzinski if
he could go home by posting a recognizance bond. Chudzinski
told defendant that Malatia and Evoy still wanted to speak
with him. After defendant had smoked, he was returned to the
interview room. Defendant was left alone in the interview
room for about an hour.

¶
35 At about 2:30 p.m., defendant requested another chance to
smoke. Chudzinski, accompanied by Detective Porrata of the
Lombard police department, took defendant outside for another
smoking break (fourth smoking break). According to
Chudzinski, they once again engaged in small talk focusing on
defendant's employment, but he did not ask defendant any
questions related to the case. Chudzinski testified that they
spoke about defendant engaging in painting jobs with his
father. At some point during the fourth smoking break,
defendant asked where Malatia and Evoy had gone. Chudzinski
told defendant that Malatia and Evoy had gone to Morgan's
house and were meeting with other investigators and evidence
technicians. Defendant asked what kind of evidence they were
looking for. Chudzinski related that he did not know, because
he had not visited the scene; however, he continued, when
Malatia and Evoy returned to the police department, they
would still wish to speak with defendant, and Chudzinski
advised defendant to "be honest with them." At
about 2:42 p.m., Chudzinski returned defendant to the
interview room. Once there, defendant remained alone.

¶
36 At about 2:57 p.m., Malatia and Evoy once again entered
the interview room. Evoy demanded that defendant "come
clean right now"; Malatia informed defendant that the
police knew absolutely how the car started on fire. Both
detectives repeated that they knew the origin of the fire and
pressed defendant to "come clean." At about 2:59
p.m., defendant stated that he lit a piece of paper on fire
and put it in the gas tank.

¶
37 At about 3:20 p.m., Chudzinski and Detective Ranallo of
the Lombard police department took defendant from the
interview room for another smoking break (fifth smoking
break). Chudzinski, following Malatia's instructions,
took defendant to smoke in the garage. Chudzinski explained
that defendant was taken into the garage instead of outside
because defendant had admitted his involvement in the fire.
Additionally, unlike the other four smoking breaks, the fifth
smoking break occurred in an area that was monitored by the
outside surveillance cameras at the police department,
although the camera monitoring the garage area was still
unequipped to record any audio. Defendant asked Chudzinski if
he would be able to "do SWAP [Sheriff's Work
Alternative Program] time" while he was in the county
jail for this case. Chudzinski told defendant that he did not
know and returned defendant to the interview room.

¶
38 Contrasting with the recollections of the various police
officers, defendant had a somewhat different version of the
events and the smoking breaks. During the first smoking
break, defendant asked Malatia and Evoy when he would be able
to call a lawyer and when he would be able to go home.
Malatia asked defendant the name of his lawyer, and defendant
told him. Malatia acknowledged that he knew defendant's
lawyer, but Malatia told defendant that his lawyer would
probably not answer his call and that, even if he did answer,
he would not come to the police department on a Sunday
morning. Defendant persisted in his requests to call his
lawyer, but Malatia did not allow him to make a call. Malatia
also did not respond to defendant's request to go home.

¶
39 Testifying about the second smoking break, defendant
maintained that he again asked to call his attorney and again
asked when he would be able to go home. According to
defendant, Malatia stated that he could not contact his
attorney and that the only way defendant would be able to go
home was if he decided to speak with the detectives again.
Defendant explained why he agreed to resume talking with the
detectives:

"Outside, [Malatia and Evoy] told me that was my only
option of going home. I felt that I really had no options.
They flat out told me I couldn't call my lawyer; I
couldn't make a phone call, period; I couldn't call
my mother. But they had blatantly ignored me all day."

Defendant
testified that Malatia instructed him about how they would
have to proceed in order to resume speaking with defendant.
According to defendant, Malatia explained that defendant
would have to once again expressly waive his right to an
attorney; the detectives would ask defendant a series of
questions and defendant would have to convey that he
knowingly wanted to speak to the detectives and that he had
asked to speak with the detectives in the first place.
Defendant further related that Malatia explained to him that
all of these procedures were going to be videotaped so that
they could be verified.

¶
40 Defendant explained that the reason he did not bring up
the purported promise that he would be able to go home was
that it was not part of the agreement he had made with
Malatia during the second smoking break. Defendant elaborated
on Malatia's instructions, maintaining that Malatia told
him what he needed to say in response to the questions that
he would be asked when they were back in the interview room
and before the camera. According to defendant, Malatia told
him that he had to go into the interview room and waive his
right to an attorney. Defendant would then be asked if he had
approached the detectives and asked to speak about the case,
to which he was going to have to answer, "Yes."

¶
41 According to defendant, during the second smoking break,
Malatia was "adamant" about speaking with defendant
about the investigation even as he stonewalled
defendant's inquiries about the investigation by claiming
that he was not allowed to speak with defendant because
defendant had asked for a lawyer. Defendant believed that
Evoy cautioned Malatia that neither of the detectives should
be talking with defendant. Finally, defendant noted that he
had not been informed that anyone had perished in the fire;
rather, the detectives told him that insurance would cover
the damage to Morgan's car and that he would be allowed
to go home.

¶
42 After the questioning was complete, defendant's
attorney arrived at the police department. The attorney was
allowed to speak with defendant.

¶
43 Defendant was charged with aggravated arson and murder.
Later, a superseding indictment was filed, charging defendant
with first-degree murder, aggravated arson, and other
offenses stemming from the fire. During the investigation,
the forensic pathologist determined that Morgan had died from
inhaling smoke and other combustion products caused by the
fire

¶
44 In an open lot next to Morgan's house, police
recovered a cigarette butt. Genetic testing on the cigarette
butt determined the presence of defendant's genetic
material. In addition, police recovered two water bottles,
each of which contained a liquid and bits of aluminum foil.
The police later determined that they were like
"Drano" or "MacGyver" bombs, in which the
aluminum foil undergoes a reaction with Drano or some other
caustic liquid, releasing heat and causing pressure to build
up in the bottle until it bursts. The bottles did not appear
to have burst, but they appeared to have tiny holes that
would have allowed the pressure to escape without bursting
them. Testimony at trial indicated that, while the chemical
reaction between the aluminum foil and the caustic liquid
produced heat, it would not have caused a flame to result.
Rather, the danger of this sort of device is the build-up of
pressure in the bottle. When the bottle bursts, the heated
caustic liquid will splatter about and injure anyone on whom
it lands.

¶
45 The case advanced. Defendant filed a motion to quash his
arrest, contending that the police did not have probable
cause to arrest him. After hearing the evidence summarized
above about the investigation, the trial court denied the
motion to quash the arrest. The trial court held that
defendant was not in custody until 8:44 a.m., when he
attempted to leave the interview room and was informed that
he was not allowed to leave. The trial court then determined
that there was probable cause to justify defendant's
custody. In particular, the trial court noted that the facts
giving rise to probable cause included: defendant
participated in a heated argument with Morgan at the party;
defendant and Morgan were in a volatile relationship;
defendant and Morgan's relationship was deteriorating at
the time of the offense; at the party, defendant was upset
because he had expected to be alone with Morgan but she had
arranged a large birthday party; at the party, a possible
romantic rival was in attendance and spending time with
Morgan; defendant had threatened the partygoers; shortly
after the heated argument, Morgan's car was set on fire;
defendant's clothes were sweaty, which was consistent
with the police hypothesis that defendant was involved in
setting Morgan's car on fire and running back to his
home; the partygoers believed that defendant was lurking in
the shadows, despite the lack of a solid identification;
likewise the partygoers believed that defendant set
Morgan's car on fire. The trial concluded that defendant
had motive and opportunity and that the police investigation
to that point reasonably supported the focus on defendant.

¶
46 Defendant also filed a motion to suppress his statements
to the police, based on the violations of his rights to
remain silent and to counsel. After a hearing in which the
parties presented the above-summarized evidence on the
circumstances of the interview, the trial court granted in
part and denied in part the motion to suppress the
statements. The trial court specifically determined that, at
8:18 a.m., defendant first invoked his right to speak with
counsel, and this should have caused the questioning to cease
but did not. The court suppressed the statements made between
8:18 and 10:26 a.m. The court also determined that, during
the second smoking break, at about 11:30 a.m., defendant
reinitiated discussing the investigation with the police and,
thereafter, knowingly waived his rights to remain silent and
to counsel.

¶
47 The trial court specifically held that defendant's
statement, at 8:18 a.m., "I told you what happened then.
Whatever. I know. Whatever. I will talk to my lawyer now,
" was "an invocation of counsel. [The trial court
did not] think it could be too much clearer. [The trial court
did not] think it[ was] ambiguous. And certainly, at that
point the interview or the questioning or interrogation
should have stopped. But it did not."

¶
48 The trial court noted that the questioning was not harsh
or heavy-handed, and it noted that defendant had demonstrated
throughout the improper questioning that his will appeared to
be unshaken. When the police did finally honor
defendant's invocation of his right to counsel, defendant
sat alone in the interview room for an hour. The trial court
considered that "one of the primary motivations [is
that] defendants always want to know what the police know
[and to know] what's going on." The trial court
believed that this desire to know what is going on caused
defendant to reach out to the police. The court determined,
as a matter of fact, that defendant "initiated a
conversation reflecting his desire to engage in a generalized
discussion of the case."

¶
49 The trial court weighed the testimony of the police and
defendant before determining, as a matter of fact, that the
version given by the police tended to match up with the facts
while defendant's version did not. Particularly, the
trial court noted that defendant had testified that he wanted
to leave and that the police informed him that the only way
he could leave was by agreeing to speak with them. However,
during the "hours of interview, " defendant never
mentioned "that, hey, wait a minute, you told me that,
if I talked to you, I could go home or you were going to get
my lawyer here or anything like that." The trial court
reasoned that ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.